Back

From Genes to Personalized Cancer Care: A Systematic Review of Toxicity-Associated Genetic Variants in Solid Tumor Treatments

Gonzalez-Hernandez, A.; Escamilla-Sanchez, A.; Perez-Ruiz, E.; Rios, A.; Frecha, C. A.; Vaca-Paniagua, F.; Barragan, I.; Perdomo, S.; Rueda-Dominguez, A.; oliver, j.

2025-10-24 oncology
10.1101/2025.10.21.25338446 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundPharmacogenomics has emerged as a crucial tool in precision medicine, offering the potential to personalise cancer treatments by predicting and managing therapy-induced toxicities. This systematic review examined the genetic basis of toxicities associated with radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy in solid tumours. MethodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Google Scholar, and PharmKB databases, covering the period from December 2019 to July 2024. This review focused on genetic variants linked to different treatment-related toxicities, including chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and immunotherapy, across various solid tumour types. ResultsThe review primarily assessed immune-related adverse events and dermatologic, haematologic, neurological, and organ-specific toxicities (e.g. ototoxicity, hepatotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, and cardiotoxicity). This review highlights single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) as essential genetic markers for identifying treatment-related toxicities. However, data on many SNVs remains limited, highlighting the need for further research and clinical validation. These findings suggest that the understanding of genetic factors that contribute to toxicity may support treatment decisions, optimise patient outcomes, and promote advances in the field of precision oncology. ConclussionThe identification of specific genetic variants could prevent the use of expensive and ineffective treatments and guide the selection of patients most likely to benefit from a specific therapy. Here, we provide valuable insights into the current state of knowledge regarding the genetic basis of toxicity in solid tumour treatments and emphasise the importance of integrating pharmacogenomics into personalised cancer care. To enhance patient outcomes and reduce the economic burden of cancer treatment, further research must validate these genetic markers and integrate the findings into clinical practice, thereby avoiding ineffective treatments for patients.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.2%
2
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
10.3%
3
BMC Cancer
52 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.9%
4
Annals of Oncology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.7%
5
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.7%
50% of probability mass above
6
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.8%
7
JCO Precision Oncology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.8%
8
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.9%
9
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.5%
10
npj Precision Oncology
48 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.8%
11
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.0%
12
European Journal of Cancer
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
13
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 51%
1.9%
14
Journal of Translational Medicine
46 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.8%
15
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
16
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
17
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.2%
18
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 20%
1.2%
19
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 70%
0.9%
20
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
21
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
22
Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer
64 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.8%
23
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
24
Clinical Cancer Research
58 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%